About your Search

20110301
20110331
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
of american commitment to the war and how much the u.s. is willing to devote to that war in terms of money and time and equipment and man power and risk. in terms of america's lead military role in the war thus far, the obama administration has been saying from the start that the u.s. would hand that off in a matter of days, not weeks. 11 days ago in a meeting with congressional leaders, president obama reportedly assured members of congress that the handover would be, and i quote, in days, and not weeks. defense secretary bob gates echoed that time line on board a military plane a few days later to moscow. >> we expect in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility to others. we will continue to support the coalition. we will be a member of the coalition, a military role in the coalition, but we will not have the preeminent role. >> in a matter of days, we will not have the preeminent role. that was over a week ago. fast forward to sunday night when nato supreme allied commander in europe posted this update on facebook, yes, seriously, a facebook update. he said, q
and afghanistan back in 2001? "t tesgo o oitwa i rorngonhto y no. first in afghanistan, the cia worked with u.s. military forces on the ground in afghanistan. in libya, the u.s. is still ruling out ground troops. so far in libya, the u.s. is not saying we are doing that. the u.s. is not saying we are arming the rebels, but as i understand it, this presidential finding if it has happened would be the kind of instrument that president obama would use to authorize something like arming the rebels. again, i am not totally clear on what the presidential finding would mean if there is one, and since we don't know for a fact there definitely was one, it is hard to say exactly what its terms are. that's one of the things we are going to try to figure out with michael isikoff from nbc in a moment. what we know about the legality of this, presidential findings have been around for decades, presidents using them for covert operations have to notify the top democrat and republican in the house and senate, as well as top democrat and republican on the intelligence committees in both the house and the senate
covert u.s. government support for rebel leaders. >> the new york times reports small groups of operatives have been working in libya for several weeks. the unknown number of american officers according to times gathering intelligence for air strikes and making contact with rebels. now, does this mean that the cia is in libya as a pseudo military force to topple gadhafi the way the cia participated as a pseudo military force in toppling the taliban in afghanistan back in 2001? the times goes out of its way and is reporting to say no. first the afghanistan worked with military forces on the ground in afghanistan. in libya, the u.s. is still ruling out ground troops. second, in afghanistan, the cia provided weapons to the opposition forces that were there fighting the taliban. so far in libya, the u.s. is not saying we are doing that. the u.s. is not saying we are arming the rebels, but as i understand it, this presidential finding, if it has happened, would be the kind of instrument that president obama would use to authorize something like arming the rebels. again, i am not t
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)